The European ruling against Google underscores how far apart European and American legal systems are when it comes to data privacy and liability.

Europe’s top court thinks people should have much more control over what gets posted about them online, ruling that Google can be forced to scrub search results directing users to old or irrelevant content that’s embarrassing to someone.

That so-called “right to be forgotten” championed by the European Court of Justice doesn’t exist in America.

“Under U.S. law, Google enjoys quite a bit of leeway as to what it can choose to take down or leave up,” Evan Brown, an Internet and technology lawyer in the Chicago office of InfoLawGroup LLP, told Law Blog.

A lot of that protection flows from the First Amendment. The European court’s assertion that Google could be required to delete “inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant” data clashes with American speech rights.

Other federal laws give Google even more cushion. Most important is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields Internet service providers and search engines from lawsuits seeking to hold them liable for not screening content produced by other parties.

So if someone writes or records something that is considered defamatory, a breach of contract, or a violation of state privacy law, Google can hold up the law as a defense if it gets sued for linking to it.

Congress passed the law in the wake of court rulings — most notably a New York court decision against now defunct online service Prodigy — that said Internet service providers could be held liable for defamatory online content created by someone else.

Without the legal shield of Section 230, says Mr. Brown, online companies in the early years of the Internet would have found it much harder to attract private investment.

“We wanted people to create these services that we now rely upon and are bringing tons of money into the U.S..economy,” Meg Ambrose, an assistant professor at Georgetown University who teaches international technology policy, told Law Blog.

Section 230 doesn’t cover all content. Google could be ordered to remove content or links to material that infringes on a copyright. Another unprotected category is “speech integral to criminal conduct,” which encompasses child pornography or snuff films.

None of this means that Google doesn’t remove personal information from search results when somebody requests it. Companies like Google have their own removal policies and sometimes decisions aren’t driven by legal threats but by public or customer relations.

Under its policy, Google says it will delete links to pages containing information that “could make a user susceptible to specific harm,” like identity theft or financial fraud. For example, they might remove a link to a page that shows somebody’s credit card, bank account or social-security number.

In many cases, Google refers individuals back to the person or entity that published that material. If the publisher complies, the information won’t show up in Google’s search results.

Google, however, says it won’t delete results that link to official government websites.

Ms. Ambrose said the European ruling could prompt a discussion in America about whether Section 230 should be adjusted. The statute has come under criticism from some legal professors. University of Maryland law professor Danielle Citron, for example, says the law should be changed to rein in anonymous online groups that threaten or harass vulnerable people.

About Law Blog

The Law Blog covers the legal arena’s hot cases, emerging trends and big personalities. It’s brought to you by lead writer Jacob Gershman with contributions from across The Wall Street Journal’s staff. Jacob comes here after more than half a decade covering the bare-knuckle politics of New York State. His inside-the-room reporting left him steeped in legal and regulatory issues that continue to grab headlines.

Must Reads

Plaintiffs' lawyers dodged a bullet last year when the U.S. Supreme Court spared a quarter-century-old precedent that had served as the legal linchpin of the modern investor class-action case. Despite that win, a new report suggests that securities class actions have lost some of their firepower.

In a week in which images of Prophet Muhammad were connected to acts of terror and defiant expressions of freedom, a sculpture of the prophet of Islam inside the U.S. Supreme Court has drawn little notice.

The salacious allegations against Prince Andrew and Alan Dershowitz that surfaced in a federal lawsuit involving convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein have generated international attention. Drawing less coverage is the lawsuit itself -- a case with the potential to expand the rights of crime victims during federal investigations.